Lords Sitting of 3 May 1933

Preamble
The House met at a quarter before four of the clock, The Loan CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Irwin, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the provisions of the Government of India Act relating to the extension of the duration of a Governor's Legislative Council; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (CHEPPING WYCOMBE) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Borough of Chepping Wycombe; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read la; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS CONFIRMATION (MAIDSTONE AND STOCKTONON-TEES) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Minister of Health relating to the Boroughs of Maidstone and Stockton-on-Tees; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (MID-GLAMORGAN WATER BOARD) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the district of the Mid-Glamorgan Water Board; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read la to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LUTON WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Luton Water Company.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WREXHAM AND EAST DENBIGH SHIRE WATER) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Wrexham and East Denbighshire Water Company; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read la; to be printed, and referred to Examiners.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (TORQUAY) BILL.
Read 2a(according to Order), and committed.

ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Falmouth.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: My Lords, I desire to move that this Bill be read a second time this day three months. I only saw the Bill yesterday. It is my own fault, but it looked to me at first sight to be such an innocent Bill that I did not take the trouble to read it. I think, however, that if you will listen to what I have got to say you will see that the Bill is one which, though it contains two or three clauses which are harmless, had better be rejected on the Second Reading, and if necessary the clauses which are harmless can be introduced in another Bill. This Bill by Clause 11 says:
"Any undertakers may be authorised to purchase land within their area of supply compulsorily for the purpose of the erection thereon of a station for transforming converting or distributing electricity by means of an order made by the undertakers and submitted to the Minister of Transport and confirmed by him in accordance with the provisions (so far as they are applicable) of the Second Schedule to the Housing Act, 1930."
The result of that is that if the Minister of Transport agrees, any undertaker—that is, any electricity company—may take a piece of my garden, or a piece of my park, or a piece of a field on one of my farms, and without a word from me erect on it a building for transforming, converting or distributing electricity, and the only safeguard is the Minister of Transport.
I do not quite know what the Minister of Transport has to do with it, but personally I object very much to the habit of making Ministers dictators, and allowing them to say what is to be done to a man's property. If there is any necessity to acquire a person's land it should be done, as it always has been done in the past, by an Act of Parliament authorised by Parliament; and the idea of substituting a dictator, in the form of a Minister, for Parliament to my mind is absolutely wrong. It is not a Minister's duty to go about and say whether it is advisable that a building should be erected on somebody else's land, and whether or not equally suitable land could not have been obtained somewhere else. As your Lordships know, there is no difficulty whatever at the present moment in acquiring land, and therefore these
684
powers not only are quite novel but they are quite unnecessary and quite wrong.
Then there is another extraordinary provision. In one of the clauses there is power to break into a man's house, and there is nothing in the clause which says that when you have broken into a man's house you must repair the damage. All it says is that you may break into a man's house providing it is unoccupied, and you must not do more damage than is necessary. I was always brought up to think that an Englishman's house was his castle, that only a police constable with a warrant from a magistrate could enter, and that nobody else could do so. I had better make quite sure, and I will read the clause. Clause 9 (2) says:
"Where any premises which any undertakers are entitled to enter in pursuance of the said Section twenty-four, Section sixteen of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, or this section are unoccupied or where the undertakers are unable to obtain admittance to any such premises though occupied they may in any case of emergency without notice and in any other case after giving not less than forty-eight hours' notice to the owner thereof or if he is unknown to them and cannot be ascertained by them after diligent inquiry by affixing such notice upon a conspicuous part of the premises forcibly enter the same doing no unnecessary damage."
Really, we are living in strange times if powers of this sort are to be given to electricity companies. Then there are other provisions which allow any local authority, company, or person authorised to supply electricity, to break up any private street he likes. That is Clause 2. There is nothing to say that they must put it down again and repair the damage, but I suppose that that is more or less understood. There is another very bad thing in this Bill, and that is that it is so much legislation by reference. Everything is by reference—this, that, or the other.
In Clause 14 you come to the railway companies and there again the Minister comes in. Clause 14 says:
"Any undertakers may with the consent of the owner of any building or any bridge over any street or road attach thereto such brackets electric lines and attachments as may be required for the purposes of their undertaking."
Those are very nice words, "with the consent of the owner," but if you go a little further you will see that that is only camouflage, because if the owners do not agree then comes in the Minister

685
and the Minister may compel the owner to do this. He may also compel any railway company to have these brackets or electric lines and attachments attached to houses and bridges. Then there is a clause providing that wherever a person fraudulently uses electricity for a purpose other than that for which he obtains it, certain penalties are to ensue. That is quite right, but it is unnecessary. Only a few weeks ago before the bench on which I sat a man was summoned by the electricity authority for attaching a flex to a wire which he had for the purposes of power. The charge for power was ½d. or a 1d. per unit, whereas the charge for lighting was considerably higher. This man attached the flex and lit a room with it, but the authorities found it out and the man was summoned. I happened to be in the chair, and I fined him, and I should do so again. But why put that provision in this Bill? It is quite unnecessary, because the existing law gives power to the undertakers.
I do not know what the object of the Bill is, but I do know that seven years ago, when I rather objected to the powers which were then given to the Electricity Commissioners, I was told that we were going to have cheap electricity. Well I have not got cheap electricity yet. A year or so ago the cable of one of these companies was about a mile and a-half from my house, and I asked them if they would supply me with electricity. They said they would, and I asked: "How much? "They replied: "A minimum charge of £400 a year." I have only a modest country house and the lighting was only for the house, not the stables. £400 a year seemed to be rather a large sum, and I naturally refused to have anything to do with them. Whether or not the reason for all this is that these electricity companies have got into a mess, and spent a great deal of money which will not return a revenue, and want to get out of that mess, I do not know; but, at any rate, the powers which are asked for in this Bill ought not to be given to any company. I beg to move the rejection of the Bill.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not intervene to take any part in this debate, but on a point of order. Your Lordships will appreciate that there is no Notice down of an Amendment. I think my noble friend can achieve his end by voting against the Second Reading.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am quite agreeable.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I am only mentioning that fact in order to preserve the Rules of the House.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Then I hope the noble and learned Viscount will vote with me.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW): My Lords, may I say a word or two in favour of this Bill? Except in two matters I think it is entirely founded on precedents which your Lordships have sanctioned in the past in Private Bills. Health and social legislation of this kind is very largely founded on experimental private legislation. A local authority promotes a Bill which contains certain clauses. That is taken up, and it becomes the usual practice for Parliament to grant the same clauses to one local authority as have been granted to another. And gradually the number of local authorities enjoying the powers asked for becomes more numerous and then, when circumstances permit, a Public Bill is introduced and it becomes the general law. This Bill, as I say, is founded on precedents in every clause except two. I may mention that the two clauses which my noble friend Lord Banbury referred to, Clauses 9 and 14, were both in the Bury Corporation Act, 1932; they were Sections 101 and 102 of that Act. So that the principle has been accepted in the case of Bury. When I saw this Bill was on the Paper I asked my noble friend who moved the Second Reading and others interested if we could meet, and I understand that it is his intention to make certain changes in Clause 2, which was referred to by Lord Banbury, and perhaps that will render the clause more acceptable to him. Clause 2 has a precedent in the Bacup Act, but I think it is not quite followed. Therefore I believe my noble friend will suggest Amendments to it which will make it generally acceptable, and will make it conform to what has been accepted by Parliament in that Act. I venture to think this Bill is a useful Bill. It will save a great many clauses in Private Bills—clauses which have already been accepted—and thereby save expense, which I am sure will appeal to my noble friend Lord Banbury.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Is this a Private Member's Bill or a Government Bill?
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: It is a Private Member's Bill, but not a Private Bill; it is a Public Bill—general legislation. But I was pointing out the advantage and the economy of embodying the substance of clauses already passed in Private Bills in a Public Bill like this. I am venturing to hope that the Government will be willing to support it.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Should not the Second Reading have been moved by a private member?
A NOBLE LORD: It was, but without a speech.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I am sorry to differ from the Lord Chairman of Committees, but I suggest that he has pronounced rather a dangerous doctrine. He has suggested that this is founded on precedents, but suddenly to incorporate in a General Bill a series of precedents in Private Bills may lead your Lordships a good deal further than you wish to go. I think your Lordships will remember an old tag, which says exceptio ne transeat in exemplum. And there are many decisions on subordinate points in Private Bills which probably, if argued on their merits with regard to public legislation, would not be accepted. I cannot help thinking that the circumstances under which this Bill was presented to us are rather unusual. The noble Viscount who introduced it, I understand, gave no explanation at all, and surely on a measure of this kind—general legislation—the Government ought to have some view of their own. I do not know what the future of this Bill will be, but if it goes to another place at this time of the Session as a Private Member's Bill I imagine it will have no chance at all. On the other hand, if it is to go as a Government Bill I think your Lordships should consider it at rather greater length than you have already. Only this morning, the first time I heard of the Bill, I had representations showing that the gas companies wish to put forward certain Amendments for consideration in Committee. Altogether I think it is a matter of rather too great a magnitude to be passed this afternoon, and I would suggest that the debate should be adjourned. I do not know that I wish to press that against the general sense of your Lordships' House, but, in order to get some
688
further statement than we have yet had from the Government, I move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Rankeillour.)
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I entirely agree with what my noble friend said. It is the practice of Parliament to embody in Public Bills clauses which have been tried out in Private Bills and tried out satisfactorily. My view is that these particular clauses for which precedents exist have been satisfactorily tried out, and they would be admitted by Parliament in Private Bills. Therefore, if they are put in a Public Bill they will become law automatically. I think that has been done very often.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, I must say I was considerably surprised by the method adopted by my noble friend Lord Falmouth. I came down to the House in order to hear an explanation of this Bill by the noble Viscount, but he simply rose and formally moved the Second Reading. I agree with my noble friend Lord Banbury. Like him, I have only just had an opportunity of looking through the Bill. He referred to Clause 11. Clause 11 is one that certainly should be explained by the introducer of the Bill, because, as Lord Banbury said, it is legislation by reference. At this moment I have no idea what is in the Second Schedule of the Housing Act of 1930, I have no idea if the Minister can give his decision without any appeal, or whether he listens to the owner of the premises or not. I certainly support the suggestion put forward by my noble friend Lord Rankeillour, that we should not proceed with the Bill to-day.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: My Lords, may I offer the House an apology that I did not explain the Bill when I introduced it? And with your Lordships' permission, may I say a few words to elucidate some of the points in the Bill? It deals with the supply of electricity, and, as your Lordships know, a number of Bills connected with the supply of electricity have been passed since 1882. No fewer than four Bills have been passed since the War, all connected with the supply of electricity. Of these four Bills, three have been of very great importance. This Bill is a much more modest measure than the three others I have mentioned. It

689
merely seeks to smooth out certain difficulties which have arisen with the supply of electricity, and which experience has shown require legislation to deal with them. That this is so your Lordships will realise when you notice that many of the Private Acts recently passed have contained clauses in connection with the matter of electricity supply. As the Lord Chairman said, these clauses are very carefully examined upstairs in Committee, and if they prove satisfactory they are subsequently embodied in Private Bill legislation, and looked upon more or less as model clauses and introduced very often in Bills when required without discussion in Committee. The object of this Bill is to collect these various clauses which have proved to have been an advantage in the course of time to the electrical industry, and to embody them in a Bill.
There are many precedents for a Bill of this character. I do not want to take up the time of your Lordships' House by quoting all the precedents, but the last one was the Public Health Act of 1925, which chiefly consisted of the collection of clauses from the various Acts passed dealing with public health. This Bill only seeks to apply to the country generally powers in connection with electricity supply which have been conferred on private undertakers in the same way as a Public Health Act did in connection with public health. All the clauses in this Bill are clauses which have appeared in various Private Bills, with the exception of Clause 1 and Clause 16. Clause 1 is framed with a view to meeting a special difficulty. It deals with the breaking up of streets. Under the 1882 Act electrical undertakers are entitled to break up streets belonging to public authorities on giving notice to the public authorities, and, in the case of dispute, that dispute is referred to the Ministry of Transport. But the 1882 Act defines what a public authority is, and, as in 1882 county councils were not in existence, there is no mention of county councils in that Act, which is a considerable handicap at the present moment to the administration of these particular clauses.
The second object of Clause 1 is to deal with streets which are not dedicated to the public, and for the repair of which there is no body responsible. If there is no body responsible for the repair, it is impossible to apply to anyone for leave
690
to break up the streets. In very many cases, such as housing estates which have been developed rapidly, and of which the streets have not been dedicated to the public, there is no body to whom you can apply to break up the roads. This is a very serious matter, and very often leads to delay and considerable additional expense. It is got over in practice when an order to supply electricity to a district is made, by naming all the streets in that area, but that is a very unsatisfactory method.
The other new clause is Clause 16. That is a clause inserted to deal with the question of what is meant by "stand-by supplies." In the 1922 Act the question of "stand-by supplies" is raised, but there is no mention there as to how "standby supplies" are to be determined. For this reason it is thought fit to include Clause 16 in this Bill. Your Lordships have realised that all the other clauses, not actually in the same words but for the same purpose, are included in private legislation which has been passed from time to time through this House.
LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE: My Lords, I understand that the question now before us is whether the debate shall be adjourned or not, and before we go to a Division on that point I think that in a Rill of this importance we should have some guidance from the Government as to what their attitude is. I attach some importance to the arguments brought forward by Lord Rankeillour and other noble Lords who have rather taken exception to the procedure on this particular Bill, but I do think we ought to have some guidance from the Government before we go to a Division.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH): My Lords, I do not think it is necessary for me to say very much in connection with this Bill on behalf of the Ministry of Transport, nor do I think it is really my business to defend any particular provisions which are included in the Bill. At the same time I must say I am a little surprised at some of the objections which have been raised against it and at some of the arguments used in favour of adjourning the debate. I think your Lordships will see, if you look at the back of the Bill, that it was introduced as long ago as the 22nd

691
of March, and therefore it is difficult, surely, to sustain the argument that your Lordships have not had sufficient time to examine the provisions of the Bill. Neither do I really think that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, has brought forward arguments sufficiently strong to warrant your Lordships in refusing to give this Bill a Second Reading. As I said at the commencement of my remarks, I do not look upon it as my business to defend every individual provision in this measure; but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, when referring to Clause 11, stated that this was an entirely novel provision and suggestion. Perhaps, if the noble Lord will give me his attention for a moment, I might disabuse him on that point. I say the noble Lord, Lord Banbury, said in respect of Clause 11, which deals with the acquisition of land for sub-stations, that the provision of this clause was an entirely novel one. I think he is entirely incorrect in making that remark. I understand that undertakers already have powers to take action of this kind, temporarily at any rate, under the Public. Works Facilities Act of 1930.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If that is a bad precedent this is no reason to have another.
THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH: I was merely explaining to the noble Lord that he was wrong in what he said. As I stated, I do not look upon it as my duty to defend every provision contained in this Bill, and I am quite willing to admit that it will need amendment if your Lordships give it a Second Reading, but I think that the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Falmouth, are fully justified in connection with it. This Bill appears to consist almost entirely of provisions concerned with the supply of electricity which have been allowed in a number of Private acts in past Sessions. The fact that such provisions are continually being sought in Private Bills may, I think, be taken as evidence that they are found to constitute a useful supplement to the general form of legislation applicable to all authorised electricity undertakers, and it is clear that a certain amount of public time and expenditure in the future would be saved if these provisions were added to the general code, thus rendering it unnecessary for such powers to be sought in individual cases.
692
Seeing there are a large number of precedents for most of the clauses of the Bill, one would have hoped—but apparently it is not yet so—that it would have been of a non-controversial character. Although it may be found necessary, as I said, to make amendments on matters of detail at a later stage if the House gives this Bill a Second Reading, am informed that the Minister of Transport and the Electricity Commission, whom he has consulted, take the view that, in general, the conferring of powers of the kind sought by this Bill should prove of assistance to authorised undertakers in their relations with consumers, and may do something to facilitate electrical development. The House will perhaps agree to give this Bill a Second Reading so that the proceedings may be considered in further detail in Committee, and so that it may be found out whether there is any chance that this Bill could be regarded as an agreed one. I think it only fair to say in conclusion, however, that the Government cannot, at this stage at any rate, give any promise that the Bill will receive further facilities later on, or that it will be passed into law during this Session.
LORD CHARNWOOD: My Lords, there is one difficulty in regard to this Bill which occurred to me during this debate. I am not sure that it is a reasonable one, but it is a difficulty which, so far as I understand, could not be dealt with in Committee owing to the title of the Bill. It is this. Granted that it is for the public advantage that electrical undertakings should have the benefit of these provisions, may it not unfairly prejudice gas undertakings if these powers are given to electrical undertakers alone? Possibly that point will be thought of and dealt with later. I only wish to add the explanation that I do not happen myself to be personally interested in gas undertakings. The point merely occurred to me during the debate.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, there are one or two points in this Bill which closely affect the gas industry. They are both points of principle and points of detail. There is a body called the Joint Conference of Public Utilities Associations, which includes official representatives of gas, water and electricity

693
undertakings, and a special meeting of that body is summoned for next week when it will consider these points, and I hope will come to a, satisfactory agreement. I have had the advantage of a private conversation with the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading, and I understand that he will be quite ready to defer the Committee stage, should the Bill pass your Lordships' House to-day, until after the meeting of the Joint Conference. I have felt it necessary to say this at this point so as not to allow the Bill to go through sub silentio.
LORD PHILLIMORE: My Lords, I rise on behalf of certain people who, I believe, are correctly termed statutory undertakers, such as the docks and harbour authorities, and authorities for inland navigation, who are very far from satisfied with some of the provisions of this Bill—provisions which infringe their rights, and provisions which, at any rate in their opinion, are contrary to precedent. Much, however, will depend as to the entent of their opposition, I understand, on the attitude of the Ministry of Transport towards the proposals which they are putting forward. The Minister of Transport is, I understand, as usual, in a dual position with regard to electricity. Not only is he, as the Minister, the authority who should protect highways and roads, but he is also in control of the Central Electricity Board, and, I presume, the Electricity Commissioners come under his purview also.
I must own that I think his position is an extremely difficult one, and it may not be amiss to call the attention of your Lordships at this juncture to the difficulty in which he is placed. For instance, at the present moment the Central Electricity Board and the electricity supply undertakers are pushing their lines right and left through the country, and crossing innumerable roads and highways. The Minister of Transport, presumably, is the person to whom reference has to be made when the interests of the users of the highways, and of the county councils and other bodies concerned with highways come in conflict with the views and interests of the Electricity Board and the supply undertakers. I fear that there is at present some reason to believe that the influence of the Ministry of Transport is used to promote the interests of electricity rather than that of highways, and I would seek this opportunity of urging upon your Lordships that too great powers should not be granted to electric supply companies and electricity undertakers of all sorts without very carefully paying regard to the interests of road users, road owners and other statutory undertakers. I shall have later to bring forward, if this Bill is allowed to proceed further, a number of Amendments.
On Question, Whether the debate shall be now adjourned?
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 31.

CONTENTS.

Elibank, V. [Teller.]

Banbury of Southam, L.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Exmouth, V.

Barnard, L.

Marley, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Carrington, L.

Parmoor, L.

Charnwood, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Arnold, L.

Conway of Allington, L.

Rankeillour, L. [Teller.]

Askwith, L.

Deramore, L.

Sanderson, L.

Auckland, L.

Dynevor, L.

Strachie, L.

Teynham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Howard of Glossop, L.

Churchill, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Reading, M.

Falmouth, V. [Teller.]

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Salisbury, M.

Hailsham, V.

Newton, L.

Mersey, V.

Phillimore, L.

De La Warr, E.

Redesdale, L.

Iveagh, E.

Bayford, L.

Rochester, L.

Lucan, E.

Clwyd, L.

Stanmore, L.

Onslow, E.

Danesfort, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Plymouth, E.

Darling, L.

Roth E.

Denman, L.

Templemore, L.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

Wharton, L.

Resolved in the negative and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
LORD RANKEILLOUR: My Lords, I am very unwilling to trouble your Lordships further, but I do seriously think that this is a Bill that ought not to be taken in Committee on the floor of the House. The various precedents are very minute and intricate And Amendments will be very difficult to consider in Committee of the Whole House. I will not press my proposal if it is not accepted, but I do wish to suggest that this is a Bill that ought to go to a Select Committee. If I am in order I move that it be committed to a Select Committee.
Moved, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.—(Lord Rankeillour.)
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I should be prepared to withdraw my opposition to the Second Reading if this proposal is accepted.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: The Second Reading has already been passed.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, I have considered this question and having gone through the clauses of the Bill carefully, I find that they are stock clauses which are put into Private Bills regularly—of course I understand that noble Lords would not have that information before them—and it did not seem to me to be strictly necessary that the Bill should go to a Select Committee. I took all the advice at my disposal and it did not seem to me to be necessary. I quite see the point of my noble friend Lord Rankeillour, however, and probably the position might be made clearer if the Bill went to a Select Committee. Therefore I see no objection to the course he has proposed. Indeed I think it might be helpful.
VISCOUNT FALMOUTH: I should be quite willing for the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee if the House decides on that course.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CAPTAIN VON RINTELEN.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAMEhad the following Notice on the Paper.—To ask His Majesty's Government if a Captain
696
von Rintelen who was sentenced to four years imprisonment in America during the War for various acts against this country and its Allies is now permitted to reside in this country, and, if so, why such permission has been granted to him, and if there are any foreign persons convicted of espionage either in this country or elsewhere now resident in Great Britain; and to move to resolve, That in the opinion of this House such permission should be revoked.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the question and Motion which I have put on the Paper relate chiefly to a certain Captain von Rintelen who is at present of German nationality and who, during the War, acted as a spy and sabotageur against this country and its Allies in America. For that he received a sentence of four years penal servitude. I do not suppose that I should have known of the presence of this Captain von Rintelen here had it not been for an article which I saw in the Sunday Express some time ago drawing attention to the fact. Owing to my having seen that article, I venture to address your Lordships. Since reading that article I find that Captain von Rintelen has written a book called "The Dark Invader." From the pages of that book I think I shall be able to convince your Lordships that he is an undesirable alien to harbour here, and that permission for him to remain in this country should be withdrawn. I am afraid I shall have to weary your Lordships with a good many pages from this book, but I think I can best prove my case from his own writings.
After managing to reach America he was requested by a compatriot to supply him with detonators for the purpose of placing them on board munition carriers to the Allies after they had been attacked on tile High Seas and the crews removed from them. This Captain von Rintelen eventually got into touch with a German chemist who had invented a new type of detonator. Perhaps your Lordships will bear with me if I read rather a long description of this instrument. On pages 74 and 75 he says:
"I had to start within a few hours. I provided myself with an excellent Swiss passport, which had been cunningly printed in Berlin, with all the requisite stamps, seals and endorsements, and the German Captain Rintelen became a Swiss citizen Emile V. Gaché. I chose this name because one naval officer in Berlin was married to

697
a Swiss lady, who now became my sister, and coached me with information about numerous nephews, nieces, aunts, uncles and other relations whom I had thus newly acquired. She gave me a photograph of my parents' house and of the little cottage high up in the Swiss mountains which we also owned, and furnished me with private lessons on the Swiss Civil Code and my Army duties. My new initials were sewn on my linen, which was sent to a laundry in order that the letters should not appear too new."
That is how he managed to get to America.
Then, on pages 95 to 97, is this description of the instrument:
"This piece of lead was hollow inside. Into the middle of the tube a circular disc of copper had been Dressed and soldered, dividing it into two chambers. One of these chambers was filled with picric acid, the other with sulphuric acid or some other inflammable liquid. A strong plug made of wax with a simple lead cap made both ends airtight. The copper disc could be as thick or as thin as we pleased. If it were thick, the two acids on either side took a, long time to eat their way through. If it were thin, the mingling of the two acids would occur within a few days. By regulating the thickness of the disc it was possible to determine the time when the acids should come together. This formed a safe and efficient time-fuse. When the two acids mingled at the appointed time, a silent but intense flame, from 20 to 30 centimetres long, shot out from both ends of the tube and while it was still burning the lead casing melted away without a trace: spurlos!
I looked at Dr. Scheele. I had hit upon a plan in which this 'cigar' should play the chief part, and I asked the chemist to demonstrate his invention by an experiment. We went out into a little wood near tie town. Ho chose a very thin copper disc, put it in the tube and laid the apparatus on the ground. We stood nearby. If the detonator worked, I could put my scheme into operation. I knew what use could be made of this 'diabolical' invention; and all that was necessary was that it should function. Heaven knows it did ! The stream of flame which suddenly shot out of the confounded 'cigar' nearly blinded me, it was so strong; and the lead malted into an almost invisible fragment.
When I looked round I saw Dr. Scheele leaning against a tree. He was gazing with bemused eyes at the tiny piece of lead, all that was left of his fiery magic.
'That was pretty good, wasn't it?' he said.
'I'll say it was!'
We soon came to terms. He was first given a round cheque in return for allowing me to use the 'cigar' in any way I wished. I asked him to return on the following day, and in the meantime I
698
secured a few assistants—captains of German ships with whom I had already become good friends, and Irishmen whose 'approval' I had won. The Irishmen had no idea who I was, nor did they ask me. It was sufficient for them that I was not very friendly towards England. I collected these men together, and took them to my office. I was sure that I could trust them, and they did not disappoint me. I came straight to the point and explained to them that I had found a means of stopping the hated shipments of munitions, and one which would not infringe American neutrality as far as I was concerned. The construction of the 'cigars' was explained to them, and I inquired if it were possible to smuggle them unobserved on to the transports which were carrying explosives to Europe. They were unanimously of the opinion that this could be very easily arranged and had no scruples since the incendiary bombs would not go off till the vessels were outside American territorial waters."
Then on page 121 he says:
"Our dockers had, of course, only put the detonators in the holds which contained no munitions, for we had no intention of blowing up the ship from neutral territory.…When the ship caught fire on the open sea the captain naturally had the munition hold flooded to eliminate the most serious danger. None of the ships reached its port of destination, and most of them sank after the crew had been taken off by other vessels. In every case the explosives were flooded and rendered useless."
He says: "most of them." What happened in the minority of cases? I should think it very likely, as an article in the Weekly Scotsman suggests, that
"he may have been responsible for several ships which totally disappeared."
In any case he endangered the lives of defenceless seamen on the high seas. On page 131 he says:
"My most fanatical helpers in this way were the Irish. They swarmed about the various ports with detonators in their pockets and lost no opportunity of having a smack at an English ship."
On page 163 he says:
"As before, we only put them on British, French and Russian vessels so as not to violate American neutrality."
There was an article in the Daily Herald of March 31, which is headed:
"Press Agency spreads," and says:
"The words 'Master spy in trouble' head a paragraph sent me. Yes, even a master spy has a Press agent now."
And under the next heading of this article—" A nice distinction "—the Daily Herald says:
"The Press agent goes on to say that von Rintelen's activities were never

699
directed against this country, but were confined to America…"
On page 181 of the book, the author says:
"I began to take a band in the Irish question. After communication with Berlin I was able to make positive proposals to the malcontents. They lacked rifles and munitions. Very well! These were to be had in abundance in America. There were enough ships sailing to Ireland from American ports."
And lie goes on:
"The question of naval intervention on the Irish coast was much more serious, and constituted one of the chief anxieties of the Irish committee in New York; but at one of their meetings I put the German Government's reply on the table. The Admiralty was prepared to send U-boats to the Irish coast which would lie hidden until the opportunity arrived to put a spoke in the British Navy plans for landing men. When my Irish friends looked up from this document, I saw in their eyes the desperate resolve to commence hostilities. They made their arrangements with their home country, and I made mine with Berlin, and a day was fixed for the rising to take place in Dublin which was to spread throughout the whole of Ireland. Either one or two days before, I, do not remember exactly, Casement was to be put ashore on the Irish coast from a U-boat, and Germany, in order to exploit the opportunity as far as possible, was prepared to land troops carrying machine guns from an auxiliary cruiser sailing alone."
The whole book, which was published as recently as the beginning of this year, is in praise of Germany, and naturally so, because Captain von Rintelen was undoubtedly and still is an upholder of Germany. And yet it has been frequently stated that he intends to become a British subject after he has resided here the requisite period. I should have thought that if a person wanted to change his nationality it would be either because he hated his country of origin or felt better disposed towards the country of his adoption. What are the facts? This would-be British subject has a rather peculiar way of showing his whole-hearted loyalty to Great Britain, for when interviewed by a representative of the Daily Herald in relation to the question before your Lordships, this is what he said:
"So far as I know, the question, coming as it does during the present espionage scare, is pure coincidence."
My Lords, the only spy case going on then was the Baillie-Stewart case, which came to an end on March 29, and that
700
trial he stigmatised as a scare. To show how much he still idolises Germany, opposite page 35 of the book there is a signed photograph of the ex-Emperor, dated August 13, 1932, with this peculiar subscription: "Meinen, dank für freundliches gedenken!" "My thanks for your kindly thoughts." So he still appears to worship at the shrine of one of the chief instigators of the War, and to be looked upon by the ex-Kaiser as still being a good German. I find no fault with that, because I have not much opinion of a person who does not uphold his country of origin, but if he still loves Germany and the German Emperor so much, then I submit that the proper place for him is Germany and not this country.
I am not likening this Captain von Rintelen to two very undesirable aliens who were refused admittance to this country, but I wish to refer to one Thaw, who committed a murder years ago. The other was Diamond, a gangster. I do not believe that Diamond had ever been convicted in his own country of any offence, but neither of these two men had ever done anything against this country nor were they likely to. Yet this Captain von Rintelen on his own showing always plotted our downfall during the War, and in a none too open manner, and it gives offence to some mothers that we should harbour such an individual in our country. I therefore beg to put my Question and to move the Motion standing in my name.
Moved to resolve, That if permission to reside in Great Britain has been granted to Captain von Rintelen and to any foreign persons convicted of espionage either in this country or elsewhere such permission should be revoked.—(Viscount Bertie of Theme.)
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, the noble Viscount has given you several extracts from the book which Captain von Rintelen has lately published. I have not read it myself, and I do not know if he tells you in that book, but I can tell you, that he was understood to be residing in America at the outbreak of the late War, and was subsequently made a prisoner of war by the British Forces, having been taken off a ship on the high seas, and was interned in this country as a prisoner of war. At a later date, when America came into the War, he was taken hack to America, where he was charged with having committed

701
certain offences before he had left that country. His Majesty's Government were not officially informed of the nature of the charges brought against him, but it is understood that he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. What the noble Viscount complains of is that in 1926 Captain von Rintelen came over to this country and was given leave to land by the immigration officer at the port of arrival. Foreigners in this country do not require permission to reside, as they do in certain other countries, and if they are allowed by the immigration officer to land they can remain here until they are guilty of any misbehaviour, when the Home Secretary may order them to be deported.
The Aliens Order is an Order by which a foreigner may be allowed to land. It is an Order-in-Council, made under the Aliens Restrictions Acts, as continued from year to year, and the general principle under which that Order is administered—I think the matter came up in the House of Commons and it was explained by the Home Secretary not very long ago—is that foreigners are free to reside in this country if their presence here is not contrary to the public interest. Captain von Rintelen was given leave to land here, and after making special inquiries the Home Secretary has no reason to believe that his presence here is in any way detrimental to the interests of this country. As regards the: noble Viscount's Resolution, that the permission to land should be revoked, I can only repeat what I said just now, that there is no system of residence permits in force in this country, and that the Home Secretary would have to make a deportation order under Article 12 of the Aliens Order. Under that Article he has power to deport an alien if he deems it to be conducive to the public good. The Home Secretary, however, has no reason to believe that it is detrimental to this country's interest, and he would not feel justified at present in taking any action to terminate Captain Avon Rintelen's stay in this country.
I would, however, press on the noble Viscount, which I hope will satisfy him, that the Home Secretary, if Captain von Rintelen's continued presence is deemed to be not conducive to the public good, has ample power to enforce his departure and would not hesitate to use that power if necessary. The noble Viscount has
702
enquired whether any other foreign persons convicted of espionage in this country or elsewhere are now resident in Great Britain, and I am informed that with the exception of a German citizen at present undergoing a term of imprisonment for an offence under the Official Secrets Act, His Majesty's Government are not aware that any alien convicted of espionage against this country is at present residing in Great Britain. The noble Viscount spoke about this gentleman's intention to become a naturalised British subject, but I am informed that no application from Captain von Rintelen for the grant of a certificate of naturalisation has been received at the Home Office.
VISCOUNT BERTIE OF THAME: He has not been here long enough.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I do not know how long that is. I have, I think, replied to the noble Viscount and put forward the position of the Home Office. It was that the immigration officer had no information of this gentleman having been convicted in the United States, and therefore gave permission to land. That permission to land holds good until it is found desirable that he should be removed from the country, and then, as I have explained, under the Aliens Act the Home Secretary can make an order for deportation. I hope I have satisfied the noble Viscount and that he will not proceed with his Resolution.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, all those who have travelled in ex-enemy countries since the War have probably encountered at one time or another persons known as war criminals, and in many cases they have found these persons to be singularly unlike what they imagined them to be. I have in mind one gentleman who was an Ambassador here, and who was universally respected, and who, I believe, also figured originally on the list of war criminals. Whether Captain von Rintelen is a desirable person or not to encourage to live in this country I do not express an opinion. I remember that when I had to do with such matters Captain von Rintelen had a very bad reputation as an enemy and he was a roan who, we considered, had done us a great deal of damage. Whenever questions of exchanging individual prisoners arose we were nearly always confronted with a demand by the Germans that Captain von

703
Rintelen should be exchanged for a particular person whom we wanted, and we invariably refused.
The noble Viscount read a number of extracts regarding this gentleman, but I can recite his history in a very few sentences. Captain von Rintelen was a naval officer who was sent to America with the object of sinking Allied ships, and he succeeded in his purpose extremely well, as is shown by his book. But eventually he was brought back to Europe by a very ingenious stratagem conceived by Admiral Hall, who sent him a telegram in the name of the German Admiralty, ordering him to report himself at Berlin immediately. Captain von Rintelen, being a well-trained officer, immediately responded and took the next boat. When he arrived at Falmouth he was taken off the boat by our people, his papers naturally were examined, and he was taken to the camp at Donnington as a war prisoner. There he remained and, judging by what he says in his book, his sojourn there was not a disagreeable one. But when America came into the War the American Government demanded that he should be handed over to them as a war criminal. I had something to do with this matter myself, and I do not feel absolutely certain in my own mind that we did the right thing. But, anyhow, we handed Captain von Rintelen over to the Americans, and he served five or six years penal servitude in an American penitentiary.
This does not look as if he were a person on whom we need bestow much sympathy, but my noble friend admitted the fact that he receives a very high testimonial, which is printed in the book, from Admiral Hall, the person who had him arrested. Nobody knew more about the Germans than Admiral Hall, and I find it rather difficult to reconcile the two facts. Is Captain von Rintelen a hardened criminal who ought under no circumstances to be admitted to this country, or is he, as Admiral Hall represents, an officer who was only doing his duty? Well, I do not really know enough about the matter to express an opinion; but, as my noble friend suggested that he ought to go back to Germany, it happens oddly enough that I have just returned from Germany myself, in fact I was there only a few hours ago. And, still more strangely, the case of Captain
704
von Rintelen came up, and I was informed on the highest authority that if he returned to Germany he would be arrested and imprisoned immediately.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, to explain one matter? I am not quite certain what he told us. I understood that once a person has got past the immigration officer and comes into this country the Home Secretary, if he thinks proper, can in certain circumstances order his deportation. Has he to wait until that person has committed an offence in this country, or has he a perfectly free hand to go into the matter and say that on the whole, having considered this man's past and what he is, he feels he can make the order now?
LORD DANESFORT: My Lords, might I ask the noble Earl a question which I think goes wider than the case of this particular Captain von Rintelen? My noble friend says that when Captain von Rintelen landed the immigration officer let him in, not knowing that he had been convicted as a spy in the United States. What I should like to know is what inquiries ought the immigration officer to make before he allows an alien to land in this country, with the result, as my noble friend, Lord Newton, says, that once he gets in he is entitled to live here until he is turned out by the Home Secretary? Is it not the duty of the immigration officer, before he admits an alien under these conditions, to make inquiries from some source and find out whether really he is a desirable or an undesirable person to land? Otherwise you run a great danger of permitting highly undesirable aliens to land and live here until somebody calls attention to the fact that they are undesirable. I should like to ask also what is the advantage to anyone in the country of having a man of that type? Is it to benefit British trade, British employment or British morals, or is it to benefit any single resident in this country that we should have a convicted spy here, apparently not to be removed even when the attention of the authorities has been drawn to the fact that he is a convicted spy? This does, I think, raise rather a bigger question than is involved in the case of Captain von Rintelen.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, with regard to the question of the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, I understand that if the Home Secretary considers that the stay of this officer is detrimental to the interests of the country, he has ample power to order his deportation. He has not to wait for any further offence to be committed. As regards Lord Danesfort, I understand he was asking why the immigration officer did not know that this officer had been in prison and was ineligible to land. I understand that in the case of an extraditable offence notice is always handed to the immigration officer, but as this case took place during the War, when there were no legal proceedings in connection with it, I understand that is why the immigration officer did not know, and it is only for an extraditable offence that the man would be disqualified. As regards the latter part, I cannot say why it is desirable that Captain von Rintelen should come to this country or whether he is going to become a naturalised British subject. I should think he was working ail he knew for his country during the War, and I do not think that I should blame him for that.
VISCOUNT BERNIE OF THAME: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I understood to say "Admiral Hall's certificate is good enough."
LORD NEWTON: He knew all about it.

TAXICAB REGULATIONS.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK VISCOUNT ELIBANK rose to ask His Majesty's Government what steps are
VISCOUNT BERTIE THAME: Admiral Hall is not infallible, and I am loth to say this, but much as I admire Admiral Hall, if your Lordships will read Captain von Rintelen's book you will see that Admiral Hall was somewhat indiscreet. He gave Captain von Rintelen, after he had arrested him, a very great account of how he had been trapped and also how Admiral von Spec had been lured into a naval battle. And this Captain von Rintelen in his book said:
"I knew that as an interned officer at Donnington Hall I should sooner or later have been able to communicate with Germany."
With regard to the reply of my noble friend Lord Lucan, I look upon it as extremely unsatisfactory. I consider it is an offence for this man to be here. I think it is an offence to have him here, when powers are held by the Home Secretary to get rid of him. I do not think the noble Earl's answer in the circumstances is satisfactory. I very seldom press to a Division any of my Motions, lint on this occasion I feel so strongly that I must do so, as I do not think your Lordships would like it to go on recora that you think this person should remain here.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 29.

CONTENTS.

Halsbury, E.

Askwith, L.

Harris, L.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Auckland, L. [Teller.]

Phillimore, L.

Carrington, L.

Swinfen, L.

Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.]

Deramore, L.

Teynham, L.

Elibank, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Wharton, L.

Falmouth, V.

NON-CONTENTS.

Iveagh, E.

Barnard, L.

Newton, L.

Lucan, E. [Teller.]

Clwyd, L.

Parmoor, L.

Plymouth, E.

Darling, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Rothes, E.

Denman, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Dickinson, L.

Redesdale, L.

Churchill, V.

Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.]

Sanderson, L.

FitzAlan of Derwent, V.

Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.)

Snell, L.

Hailsham, V.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Strathoona and Mount Royal, L.

Mersey, V.

Jessel, L.

Marley, L.

Templemore, L.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

taken to ensure proper inspection of taxicabs in London before they go out in the streets to ply for hire; whether there is any official record kept of accidents occurring as a result of defective taxicabs: if so, what have been the numbers of accidents during the past three years

707
respectively; and whether His Majesty's Government will cause an examination to be made into the whole subject with the object of tightening up the Regulations; and to move for Papers.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I make no apology for the Motion that is down in my name, because I believe that this question requires attention from the Home Office, as also does the whole subject of taxicabs in London. The principal reason why I raise this Motion is that shortly before Easter a lady relative of mine was going across Hyde Park in a taxicab to meet a friend at Paddington, and half-way across the Park the near front wheel of the taxicab came off, and the taxicab tumbled over on its side. The occupant was subsequently extracted from the taxicab through the window of the door, and she had sustained a bad fracture of the arm, two broken ribs, and cuts and bruises on her legs and different parts of the body. After Easter I communicated with the Home Secretary, asking him whether he could give me particulars of this accident and what the position was with regard to inspection of taxicabs in London before they went out on to the streets to ply for hire. He very kindly sent me a reply in which he informed me that so far as the particular accident was concerned it was not due to any constructional defect in the cab, but was due to the fact that the wheel had not been properly tightened up; the nuts and security bolts of the near-side front wheel apparently had worked loose without attracting the driver's attention, and this caused the wheel to come off.
At the same time he sent me a copy of the Regulations governing taxicabs in the London district. That taxicab was insured in the usual way, and no doubt the occupant will receive certain compensation to cover the cost of possibly seven or eight weeks in a nursing home, and she may receive some damages also, but that by no means covers the physical shock to the system of an individual who has reached a certain stage in life and who may never perhaps recover from such a shock as she received upon that occasion. Therefore, it is not sufficient to say that compensation will be paid for this accident through insurance. I think we have to go further and ascertain whether it is not possible to do
708
something through the Home Office or Scotland Yard, or whoever is responsible for these taxicabs, in order to prevent accidents of such a nature happening in the future, or at any rate minimising them as far as possible. I have put down my Motion so as to make this matter public and to obtain public support in asking the Home Office to take some action to stop this sort or thing. This question of taxicab inspection—and I agree there is possibly a good deal of difficulty in arranging the inspection of a large number of taxicabs every day before they go out into the streets—does not stop there. I think the whole question of taxicabs in London requires consideration by the authorities.
Noble Lords like myself have the opportunity of using, and do probably use taxicabs almost daily in the City. They also have an opportunity of hearing what the general public who use taxicabs are saying about the condition of the taxicabs which ply in the streets of London to-day. The number of taxicabs, I found from the Report of the Police Commissioners which is published to-day, was 8,152 in the year 1931, and in 1932 there were 8,121 taxicabs plying in the streets of London, or thirty-one less than in the preceding year. I submit that that is far too great a number of taxicabs to ply for fares in the City of London. You can go into any quarter, in Westminster, or Piccadilly, or any part of London where there is a good deal of traffic and you will see not only many taxicabs along the streets but also rows of taxicabs on the ranks waiting for hire. I venture to suggest that the number of taxicabs in this City could be cut down by nearly a third at least and still leave a sufficient number for the passengers who use them.
Why is it that you see so many taxicabs on the ranks and other taxicabs plying up and down the streets? You generally find that the taxicabs which are concentrated on the ranks are the old ones, the worst of their kind in the City, and that those going up and down the streets trying to obtain hire are the better class of taxicabs, which do not go on the ranks for the reason that not only are they not called for unless they ply about the streets, but they find them- selves in competition with the worst class of taxicab of which so many exist

709
in the City. I suppose nearly a quarter of the taxicabs in London are aged from fifteen to twenty years. Within the last 48 hours I have taken two taxicabs haphazardly off the streets. As I got out of one I asked: "What is the age of this cab?" and the driver replied, "Eighteen years." This morning I took another taxicab and when I got out I asked the same question: "What is the age of your taxicab?" The driver answered: "Nineteen years and it will last for many years yet." I think that everyone will agree that taxicabs or any motor vehicles at the age of fifteen or eighteen or nineteen years have long passed their best days and are certainly not fit to be used in a City like London, which is supposed to be the most modern and the most up-to-date in every way in regard to transport.
I have had the opportunity of examining the Regulations which are made by the Home Secretary governing taxicabs in London and I do not find in those Regulations a single reference to the age of taxicabs. The Regulations deal with various questions concerning the suitability of the taxicab, but there is not a single reference to the age of the taxicab. Unless the question of age is taken into consideration by the authorities who license these taxicabs, I do not see how you San ever succeed in getting the best class of taxicab on the streets. Last year there were 8,121 taxicabs in London—a figure which I have already given you—and during the same year only 513 new motor cabs were licensed. That means that each year only one out of every twenty taxicabs in London is a new taxicab. Therefore taxicabs reach the age of twenty years before they are replaced. I venture to submit that that is wrong and that there should be no taxicab on the streets which is over the age of ten years, or twelve years at the outside.
One of the reasons why taxicabs are kept for so long on the streets is their cost. I understand that a taxicab to-day under the Regulations laid down by the licensing authorities costs between £600 and £700. I venture to submit to your Lordships that no taxicab in London ought to cost in the present day more than £400 or £500 at the outside. If taxicabs were designed so that they would riot cost more than that sum it would take a shorter time to amortise them—to
710
pay off the capital cost—and then you would not have on the streets so many shaky, ramshackle taxicabs as we find to-day. Looking at the Regulations I find that No. 32 says that every taxicab must be provided with an approved means of communication between the passenger and the driver. How many taxicabs that your Lordships get into provide approved means of communication between the passenger and the driver? I personally very seldom find them. Theo Regulation No. 34 says that means must be provided to enable the passenger to adjust the amount of opening of the windows. Constantly I get into taxicabs in London and I am unable to pull up or to lower one of the windows because it is stuck.
Then Regulation 35 says that the glass of the front window should be of the reinforced variety—that is, the safety variety—and that where in the opinion of the Commissioner further protection for the passenger is requisite, reinforced glass elsewhere may be required to be fitted. There are many taxicabs plying in London which have no reinforced glass at all in any part of the taxicab, so that this Regulation is being broken every day. I venture to submit to your Lordships that not only the front glass of a taxicab ought to be of the reinforced variety, but the side glass as well. In fact all the glass in a taxicab should be of the reinforced variety in order to safeguard the passengers and the driver if there is an accident. I find also that Regulation No. 37 says that some effective means must be provided to prevent the rattling of window frames and glass. How can you prevent the rattling of window frames in taxicabs that are twenty years old?
I venture to say that the whole of the Regulations relating to taxicabs in London require very careful revision. An expert Committee was set up in 1928. Five years have elapsed since 1928, and I venture to submit that the conclusions of that expert Committee which are embodied in these Regulations once more require revision, and very careful revision at that. I am quite aware that there is a sentimental side to this question. There are many owner-drivers of taxicabs in London who are dependent for their living upon their taxicabs, and consequently they go on driving these taxi-

711
cabs as long as they can for their livelihood. But there are a great many taxicabs that are owned by companies—small companies and large companies—which have not the same reason to advance. My belief is that this question ought to be taken up by the Authorities concerned, and that they should weed out these old taxicabs so that we shall have in the streets of London taxicabs of which we can be proud. There are taxicabs in Paris and in New York which are infinitely superior to any you can find in this City. In Paris there are two classes of taxicabs, the first-class and the second-class. You pay more for the first and less for the second, so everybody's purse or pocket is satisfied.
Then there is another point, the question of tipping. Over and over again the drivers of taxicabs receive 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. more than their fares and object to those tips. The other day I took a taxicab from the top of Victoria Street to Eaton Place, a sixpenny fare. I got out and paid the driver ninepence and he left me standing on the pavement blessing me with all the words at his command. But the question of tipping is a far more serious one for the female sex, because the drivers very often demand tips from ladies, with sometimes insulting language to frighten them, and they are forced to give much higher tips than otherwise they would do. I should like to see something included in the Regulations to deal with that matter. I do not propose to take up the time of the House longer. I have raised this question because there is a great deal of feeling in the City of London on the part of those who object to the great congestion which is being caused as a result of the excessive number of taxicabs. I believe this matter to be one that requires early and very serious consideration by the Home Office or by whatever authority it is that deals with the subject. I beg to move for Papers.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, before I begin to answer the noble Viscount's Questions I am sure I may say that every one of your Lordships feels the deepest sympathy with him in the cause which induced him to put down these questions, and that we all very much hope that his relative will be restored to health and be none the worse for the accident in future. My noble friend has told us that the Home
712
Secretary has given him a certain amount of information. I think the Home Secretary did explain that the unfortunate accident in which this lady was involved was not due to any constructional defect, but to the fact that the wheel had not been properly tightened up and that some of the nuts worked loose without the driver noticing the fact—which I take it might really happen in the case of any of our cars. I think the Home Secretary also informed my noble friend that the stock of the proprietor to whom this cab belongs had been inspected five times this year, the last occasion being on April 11. Your Lordships will realise that it would be quite impracticable to have a daily inspection, but the police are doing as much as they can to have inspections as frequently as possible, especially of the older cars. I think my noble friend mentioned that he had heard that the conditions of fitness were last revised in 1928 in conformity with the recommendations of an expert Committee which was set up the previous year. While no drastic revision is contemplated or would appear to be required the conditions are at the present time in course of revision.
The noble Viscount asked whether records were kept of accidents. A record is kept by the police of all accidents in which taxicabs are involved. This shows that in 1930 out of 8,167 cabs licensed there were four accidents due to defects in the vehicle and one person was slightly injured. In 1931 out of 8.152 cabs licensed two accidents were due to defects in the vehicle and two persons were slightly injured. In 1932, 8,121 cabs were licensed, the number of accidents due to defects in the vehicle was four, and one person was injured. These figures would seem to show that taxicabs, as far as their structure goes, reach a fair standard of efficiency.
The noble Viscount went through a great many points which I should like to be able to answer. One point of which he made a great deal was as to the age of the vehicle, but I think it is conceded that this matter is not really so much one of age as of maintenance and condition. It was stated in reply to a Parliamentary question in the House of Commons last March that there were 211 cabs on the streets over twenty years old and 1,794 between ten and twenty years old. All cabs of fifteen years and over are subjected to special examination over

713
the pit at the Public Carriage Office, Lambeth, before the licences are renewed, and it is the intention to extend this special examination to cabs of ten years of age in the near future. It may be mentioned that already the activity of the police in regard to the elimination of old cabs from the streets is causing much concern; especially in the present hard times, to those owners whose sole livelihood depends on their one cab, and strong representations have been made for the police to relax their requirements so as to allow time to tide over the period of depression. As to there being too many cabs on the streets I am not sure that when I am coming out of a theatre on a wet day, or am overtaken by a storm, I think there are too many cabs. There may be in' normal times, but the numbers have decreased to a certain extent. In 1930 the vehicles licensed numbered 8,167 and the number of new vehicles licensed was 806. In 1931, the vehicles-licensed were 8,152 and the new vehicles 643. In 1932, 8,121 vehicles were licensed and there were only 513 new vehicles licensed.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask whether those new licences were replacements or new altogether?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I am afraid I cannot answer that for certain, but I imagine they are included in the total figure and would replace those that have got out of date and been scrapped. I will find out the answer to that and let my noble friend know. With regard to pulling up the window of a cab. I have certainly found that I sometimes have difficulty, and perhaps some of the older cabs are not sufficiently up-to-date; but I de not think one can expect perfection. My noble friend compared Paris with London. From my own personal point of view, I am rather surprised to hear that he thinks the Paris taxicabs are better. As regards tipping, the only remedy which. I can suggest,—it does not want any further legislation—is that if a taxicab driver will not take his threepence, which I should have thought was a very good addition to a sixpenny fare, one has only got to report him. I have no doubt that all these things are taken into consideration by the licensing authority, and it would be considered when the mail applied for a licence. I hope I have
714
answered all the questions of the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. I would also like to thank him for his kind expression of sympathy in the case which I mentioned in my speech. Naturally, the noble Earl was not able to say what could actually be done to remedy some of the points that I mentioned. He was, however, sympathetic, and actually agreed with some of my points, and thought that some ought to be remedied. What pleased me most in his speech was that he told your Lordships that the Home Office, or Scotland Yard, or whoever the authority may be, are engaged now in revising the Regulations. Naturally, no one would be so unreasonable as to expect that you could have a revision of the whole system at a moment's notice, but I am glad to hear from the noble Earl that the Government have got this matter in hand, and that they are really going to do something about it. I sincerely hope that one result of these measures will be ultimately to get a much better class of taxicab on the street, and make the taxicabs worthy of the transport of London. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

HOUSING (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed.
Clause 3:
Power of Department to reimburse part of losses sustained under guarantees to building and other societies.
3.—(1) Where a local authority submit to the Department proposals for guaranteeing, in exercise of the authority's powers under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of Section seventy-five of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, the repayment to a society of advances made by the society to any of their members for the Purpose of enabling them to build or acquire houses intended to be

715
let to persons of the working classes, if the Department are satisfied that the guarantee extends only to the principal of, and interest on, the amount by which the sum to be advanced by the society exceeds the sum which would normally be advanced by them without any such guarantee, and that the liability of the local authority under the guarantee cannot be greater than two-thirds of that principal and interest, the Department, if they approve the proposals, may, with the consent of the Treasury, undertake to reimburse to the local authority not more than one-half of any loss sustained by thorn under the terms of the guarantee:
Provided that any proposals made to the Department under this section shall—

(a) include such particulars as they may direct as to the number and type of the houses intended to be built or acquired and the approximate size of them measured in superficial feet; and

(b) snake provision for securing that, except in so far as the Department may in any particular case dispense with the requirements of this paragraph,—

(i) the number of such houses in relation to the area occupied or intended to be occupied by and in connection with them will not exceed the rate of twelve to the acre; and

(ii)every such house will he provided with a fixed bath in a bath-room.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved to insert at the end of subsection (1):
"and
(c) make provision for securing that in the case of houses to be built a fair-wage clause which complies with the requirements of any Resolution of the House of Commons applicable to contracts of Government Departments, and for the time being in force, is inserted in all contracts or agreements for advances between the society and its members, and in all contracts for the construction of the houses."
The noble Earl said: The object of my Amendment is to put a fair-wage clause into this Bill, and I would like to point out that there is nothing new in doing that. For years all Government and local authority contracts have contained a fair-wage clause. Indeed, the State has insisted for a generation on a fair-wage clause in all contracts. In this very Bill the Secretary of State for Scotland, in Committee in another place, admitted that a fair-wage clause should apply. Mr. Skelton on the 10th of April also admitted it and said:
"The position will best be maintained by the circular which my right hon. friend proposes to address to local authorities, if and when the Bill passes."
I cannot see for what reason he will not put it into legislation in the Bill. It seems to me most unreasonable. Some employers are good and others are not, and it may well be that in the future some bad employers may refuse to carry out the agreement they have made. If that occurs stoppages will at once ensue, and there is no reason whatever why this Bill should not include a clause as regards wages and other conditions. I know that the Government will riot accept my Amendment, but I hope that possibly your Lordships may do so, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, after line 10, insert the said new paragraph (c).—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am afraid that the Government are unable to accept this Amendment. As the noble Earl is aware, and as he said, the Secretary of State is in sympathy with the object of the Amendment, and hopes that the Government's fair-wage clause will be observed in all contracts for the erection of houses under Clause 3 of the Bill. The Secretary of State considers that the Amendment which is proposed would be inappropriate to the circumstances under which the guarantee is given under Clause 3. What the clause does is to provide a guarantee to the building societies for a portion of the money which they may lend on houses erected for the purpose of letting them to persons of the working classes. It is not a guarantee of a contract for the building of the houses. It may be pointed out that this is no new form of guarantee. Since 1925 the local authorities have had power to guarantee building society loans without any requirement as to a fair-wage clause. All that the Bill does is to make the State responsible for one-half of any loss which the local authority may incur in respect of the guarantees which they may in future give to building societies in cases where these societies advance money' beyond the sum which they would normally advance.
The introduction of the Amendment might have a hampering effect on the scheme. The main activity of the building societies is to lend money for the erection of houses: they do not themselves build houses. At the best, the loans which the building societies will advance

717
for houses erected under Clause 3 will form only a small part of the whole activities of these societies. It would appear therefore to be unsound legislation to put in a provision with respect to the fair-wage clause in one branch of the societies' activities and to have what must always be the greater part of their activities unaffected by that provision. On the question of the practical difficulties of enforcing the provisions of the Amendment two observations may be made. The first is that to an extent, and possibly to a large extent, the person providing the houses will himself be a builder, using his own staff, and in that event there would be no contract for the erection of the houses. Secondly, it would be a matter of extreme difficulty to verify the observance of the condition in contracts which reed never come near a Government Department, and need not come before a local authority, and are really the private concern of the investor and the builder. To import a restriction of the kind proposed into private business would really be an abuse of the advantage which the State would gain by being is the position of a guarantor to a small extent.
It has never been the practice of Parliament to insist on the insertion of the fair-wage clause in contracts other than those made by local authorities. As I have said, the Secretary of State is anxious to secure the object which the noble Earl has in view and I am authorised to say that he proposes, in the circular to local authorities explaining the provisions of the Bill, to ask them to exercise the best influence that can be exercised to maintain the operation of
718
the fair-wage clause. In the circumstances I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.

EDUCATION (NECESSITY OF SCHOOLS) BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a(according to Order): Amendment (Privilege) made: Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

UNIVERSITY SPURIOUS DEGREES (PROHIBITON OF USE AND ISSUE) BILL. [H.L.]
LORD JESSEL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill with respect to the unauthorised use and issue of University degrees, and with respect to the penalties to be imposed in regard to such unauthorised use and issue; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la. —(Lord Jessel.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

RHONDDA PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock.